pizzahut451 said:
r505Matt said:
pizzahut451 said:
Rath said:
pizzahut451 said:
As long as those morals given by XXXXXXXX are perfecttly correct too, I dont see a reason why you shouldnt listen to XXXXXX. That is, assuming XXXXXX ia giving correct, good and righteous morals. If XXXXXXXX is givng false and bad morals, than XXXXXX doesnt hold much credit or value in comprassion with God. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IN THIS ARGUMENT, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WEATHER YOU BELIEVE IN UNVERSAL OR SUBJECTIVE MORALS. I don't think you know the difference between the 2.
|
Lets say for the sake of argument that morals are objective. Different groups claim to have the correct set of morals. What is it that makes you certain that your morals are the correct and objective ones?
|
What you desicribed there doesnt differ from subjective morals.If the morals are objective there can be only 1 set of cerrect morals, and what makes me certain that my morals are correct is faith/the principles I beleive in. I dont see how ANY morals Christ gave to people can any reasonable and good person consider wrong. His morals are objectivly correct.
|
That's only from your perspective. Your basing that on a subjective belief of what is right and wrong. I took a few philosophy classes in college, one of them was about this topic exactly. Is there an objective set of morals? A universal true set of right and wrong? That class was one of the best classes I've ever taken, but in the end, it amounted to one thing. We can never know. There is NO possible way to truly know. We can debate and theorize and think and discuss all we want. But in the end, there is really no way to know for sure either way.
You think it's wrong to kill and steal and lie and cheat. You believe in the 7 deadly sins as sinful. But morals are not that simple. Maybe other cultures/religions/species (talking about possible aliens here since we're talking about universal morals) don't have a problem with murder. Most of us do, but who's to say we are right? You are just assuming we are right, but in fact we could be wrong. Or maybe there are no morals and what we believe in as right and wrong is merely a higher human powers' attempts to control the masses.
That's pretty much the entire meaning behind Assassin's Creed's creed of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". Who's to say your right and that idea is wrong? You can assume and believe all you want, but there is no answer to be found, and if you think you've found the answer, you haven't. Now maybe like a multiple choice quiz, you could get lucky and stumble on the right answer, but you won't know until you get your test scores back. What you're trying to argue is that you guess on your multiple choice test, and you know you got it all correct. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't, but the key point is that you do now know, and you will not know until later, if ever (death).
|
I actually agree with you, I dont know if you noticed that.I did say its all about faith a few posts bac, I dont know if you read that. I dont think all humans can ever agree on universal laws, but that doesnt mean there is no universal and correct law. Hell, I dont know a single culture and religion where it says killing and steling are OK. I dont think any culture promotes stealing as a correct moral. I beleive to christ's morals because of his 2 messages ''Dont ever do anything that you dont wish to be done to yourself'' and ''respect and love your God''. i just dont see how any reasoable human can consider those 2 messages wrong. (which are basiclly all christ's messages gathered into 2). They just ''feel'' correct
|
I somewhat agree with you too, my only point is even if they seem like good morals to EVERYONE on the planet, that doesn't mean they are good morals. We would be basing our idea of good off of what we think, in terms of relativity, is good. Not to mention there is SOOO much grey when it comes to morals.
So you bring up the golden rule. Treat others as you want to be treated. So if I wanted to be murdered (strange thought, but still) then I rightfully should go commit murder. I'm treating others as I want to be treated. Or maybe, in a less extreme example, what if I like pain (masochistic). Should I think inflict pain on others? Most people see that as wrong, but it follows the golden rule or treating others the way you want to be treated. That thought/idea/moral doesn't hold much weight in serious ethics discussions.
As for the previous post, let's talk about unicorns. Let's now assume for a moment, without doubt, that unicorns never existed in reality. Assuming that statement to be true, it would be 100% impossible to find evidence of a unicorn, whether it be eyewitness or fossil remains or anything. According to what we've assumed to be true, you would NEVER ever ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of unicorns. There would be no evidence to find. That's my only point. Assuming for a moment that God does not exist, you would not be able to find evidence ever. Atheists believe God doesn't exist. Asking an atheist to find proof God doesn't exist (even if he does) is the same as me asking you to find proof that unicorns don't exist (assuming you don't believe in unicorns, if you do, put in some other mythological creature you don't believe in). That's my only point there.
